Section 100A CPC | Intellepedia

All the Trappings! Bombay High Court Bars Second Patent Appeals

Illustration of closed courthouse gates symbolising the bar on second patent appeals in India under Section 100A CPC — Bombay High Court ruling on patent appeal maintainability

When the Bombay High Court dismissed a patent applicant’s appeal after a Single Judge upheld the Controller’s refusal, the applicant tried a second round before the Division Bench. The court’s answer, drawing on Section 100A CPC and the “trappings of a Civil Court” doctrine closes a significant procedural door for Indian patent litigants.

Intra-Court Appeals Not Maintainable in Trademark Appeals: Calcutta High Court Interprets Section 100A CPC

In the case of Glorious Investment Limited vs Dunlop International Limited & Anr., the Calcutta High Court ruled that no intra-court appeal lies against an order of a Single Judge made under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act. The court held that once a Single Judge exercises appellate jurisdiction under the Act, a further appeal is barred by Section 100A of the Civil Procedure Code.